iustitia aliena

B. B. Warfield  

I’m Addicted

Taken from the Reformed Expository Commentary: 1 Timothy (2007), by Philip Graham Ryken.

 ”Philip Graham Ryken (D.Phil., Oxford University) is senior minister of historic Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia…” (This part of the bio is taken from the inside flap of this commentary) ”His Oxford DPhil thesis, ‘Thomas Boston (1676-1732): Preacher of the Fourfold states…’”  (part of the bio is taken from Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment).

A PROTECTOR OF WIDOWS

The surprising thing about the house rules Paul gives Timothy is that they say so little about most family relationships and so much about widows.  There are only two short verses for fathers and brothers, sisters and mothers, but fourteen verses for widows.  Why is this?

Undoubtedly, the special emphasis on widows says something about the church in Ephesus.  For one reason or another, the Ephesians needed help knowing how to care for their widows.  Timothy may even have written to ask for Paul’s guidance in this area.  But the attention to detail in these instructions also says something important about God.  God has a special place in his heart for single women, especially for widows.  Here it should be noted that the Greek work for “widow (chera) refers to any woman without a husand, and not simply to a woman whose husband had died.  Kent Hughes wisely comments: “Today the application of this passage should be wider, because modern American culture has produced a category of women virtually unknown in the first century–Christian women and children who have been adandoned by their spouses and left without family support.  Godly single mothers are a new class of ‘widow.’  And those without family and resources are the church’s sacred responsibility.”

In the Old Testament, God is styled the “protector of widows.”  His affection for needy women is written into the law:  “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God….He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow” (Deut. 10:17-18).  God’s concern for widows and orphans is also written into the biblical hymnal:

Sing to God, sing praises to his name;

lift up a song to him who rides through the deserts;

his name is the LORD;

exult before him!

Father of the fatherless and protector of widows

is God in his holy habitation.

God settles the solitary in a home. (Ps. 68: 4-6)

Some of the most touching episodes in the Old Testament concern the care and feeding of widows.  God fed Ruth during the barley harvest and places a child on Noami’s lap (Ruth 1:22-2:23; 4:13-17).  He spared the widow of Zarephath in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 17:7-24).  He provided an abundance of oil for a widow through the ministry of Elisha (2 Kings 4:1-7). Almighty God has earned the right to be called the Protector of Widows.  And not surprisingly, Jesus also took special care for widows.  He brought an only son back to life for the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-15).  He commended the persistence of the praying widow (Luke 18:1-8) and the generosity of the poor woman who gaev all she had at the temple (Mark 12:41-44).  He also rebuked Bible scholars who “devour widows’ houses” (Mark 12:40).  Even on the cross, he made provision for is own mother in her widowhood (John 19:25-27).

The reason for God’s concern is that widows were vulnerable in the ancient world.  The learned historian William M. Ramsay wrote that given “the narrow restrictions of ancient social life, it was not easy for them to maintain their children after the earning member of the family had died, and they stood in need of special consideration and help.”  Without the protection of a man, widows were sometimes exposed to physical danger.  They lacked the economic power to provide for their needs, especially in old age. The same is often true today.

For all these reasons, God was concerned about the welfare of widows.  The prophet Isaiah thus challeneged God’s people to “plead the widow’s cause” (Isa. 1:17; cf. Ex. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; Job 29:13).  God wants all his children to share their Father’s heart for the fatherless and the husbandless.  This means caring for widows first of all.  This principle applies not only to widows, however, but to every family member who needs special care: the sick, the elderly, the disabled, and single mothers.  God knows that as long as his weakest children are protected, his whole family will be safe.

Imagine a father who leaves two children with a babysitter: a nine-year-old boy can almost look after himself, but a little girl requires greater care.  The father’s primary concern is to make sure that the babysitter knows what she needs.  Our Father in heaven has a similar heart concern for all his neediest children.

PUTTING RELIGION TO PRACTICE

The early chuch shared God’s heart for women who were alone in the world.  In fact, the first ecclesiasiastical controversy controvery concerned the care and feeding of widows: “Now in those days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution” (Acts 6:1).  Under the direction of the apostles, the church in Jerusalem chose seven men to make sure all the widows got what they needed.

There are needy widows in nearly every church, of course, which is why Paul pleads their cause:  ”Honor widows who are truly widows” (1 Tim. 5:3).  This raises the obvious question:  What does it mean for a widow to be truly  a widow? Paul’s basic answer is that “a widow in need is a widow indeed,” and thus he proceeds to offer several guidelines for assessing a widow’s true needs. 

The first qualification is that a true widow does not have independent means: “But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God” (1 Tim. 5:4).  Widows who are all alone need special care from the church, whereas others can rely on family support. 

In the ancient Greek world, support was related to a women’s dowry.  If her husband died, she entered the household of her son or grandson.  Her dowry would then pass into his possession.  Paul wanted to remind the Ephesians that this custom was good Christianity–one good way to be godly.  Caring for aged parents (and grandparents) is the most practical theology of all.  Piety always begins at home (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5).

To makre sure that Christians do their duty, the Bible gives two motivations for caring for widows.  First, support is something children owe to their parents.  After everything parents have done over the years, it is only fair for their children to provide for them in old age.  In the economy of God, this is the way children can repay their parents.  This does not necessarily mean that children need to provide all the care themselves.  It is important to plan for the future, which may include carrying the proper medical and life insurace.  There is also a legitimate place for professional care-givers, as well as for nursing homes, in some cases.  But it is the responsibility of children to make sure that their parents receive the best possible care.   Whenever possible, they should do the caring themselves, in their own homes.

Not only is family loyalty something children owe to their parents, but it is also something they owe to God.  This is second motive Paul offers: caring for family needs is “pleasing in the sight of God” (of course it is pleasing to God: he is the Protector of Widows, after all).  By telling families to take caure of their own needy, the apostle was not simply trying to reduce the church’s budget.  He wanted to make sure that Christians glorified God by loving their families.

To underscore the importance of family care, the Scripture also issues this strong warning: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).  Even pagans have a sense of duty to their relatives, especially ones living under their own roof.  Therefore, a Christian who refuses to shoulder his family responsibilities is worse than a pagan (cf. Matt. 15:4-6).  This is not to say that a man must earn all or most of his family’s income himself (as the verse is often mistaken to teach), but that a husband and father must bear the ultimate responsibility for his family’s welfare, seeing to it that they have whatever resources they need, by whatever appropriate means God may provide (including his wife’s income, for example, if her employment is in keeping with her calling as a wife and mother, and with the family’s total needs).  Any dereliction of this fundamental family duty is tantamount to a denial of Christ.  No matter how eloquent the man’s testimony may be, his life denies his Christianity.

This warning needs to be heard in our day, because we do not live in the most compassionate of times.  All too often, modern society shoves the elderly out of sight and puts them out of mind.  But this gives the church a wonderful opportunity to shine with the compassion of Christ.  The way Christians care for parents and grandparents ought to proclaim  the love of God.  So should the way we care for other people’s parents when, for example, we share the good news about Jesus Christ in local nursing homes.  We are the children of a Father who is the Protector of Widows, and therefore we are called to be agents of his protecting and providing grace (198-202).

Younger ministers, and all Christians, should relate to women as respectfully as they relate to men.   Older women should be treated like mothers.  They should be loved and listened to.  They should be protected and cared for.  There is a touch example of this from Paul’s own life, when at the end of Romans he greets “Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well” (Rom. 16:13).  To take a more contemporary example, consider the way in which the great C.S. Lewis cared for a mother of his friend Paddy Moore.  The two men had served together in World War I. Lewis agrred that if Moore died in combat, he would look after his mother.   Moore was indeed killed during the war, and Lewis held up his end of the bargain.  By all accounts, Mrs. Moore was a difficult woman to live with, but Lewis treated her like his own mother in his own home for some thirty years (197).

Taken from Michael Horton’s chapter “Obedience Is Better than Sacrifice” in the book The Law Is Not Of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.  

“Under the law, in Adam, one is trapped in the cycle of sin and death, resentment and despair, self-righteousness and self-condemnation.  Yet under grace, in Christ, one is not only justified apart from the law but is able for the first time to respond to that law of love that calls from the deepest recesses of our being as covenantally constituted creatures.  It is not the law itself that changes, but our relation to it, and that makes all the difference.” (334)

Taken from T. David Gordon’s Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers.

“When Jesus talks with Peter about whether Peter loves him, he replies: “Feed my lambs…. Tend my sheep…. Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). Contextually, I would argue that these are not three different things, but one thing stated in three ways (not that the verb “feed” has both “lambs” and “sheep” as its direct objects, and both verbs, “feed” and “tends” have “sheep” as their object).  That is, the particular “tending” referred to here is the pastoral care that ensures that the flock is fed.  Such nourishment and spiritual sustenance, I would argue, comes from proclaming the  fitness and competence of Christ in his mediatorial work.  When we “feed” God’s flock, we feed their faith.  We nourish the part of them that has the need and capacity to rest on Christ and have confidence in his work of redemption.

This was also John Calvin’s view.  Ordinarily, the relation of Word and sacrament is very strong for Calvin.  Each complements the other and aids the other in fufilling its proper task.  “For we ought to understand the word not as one whispered without meaning and without faith, a mere noise, like a magic incantation, which has the force to consecrate the element.  Rather, it should, when preached, make us understand what the visible sign means.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. McNeill, trans. For Lewis Battles, 4.14.4).  But how can the preaching help us understand what baptism or the Lord’s Supper means, unless the preaching is essentially and profoundly Christological?  As Wallace observes on the above referenced section of Calvin’s Insitutes: “In the use of the sacraments it is of the utmost importance not only that the Word be given but that those who participate attend first to the Word and then relate the sacramental action to the Word that has been spoken, otherwise the sacraments will lose their value.”  Calvin even believed that the entire Old Testament Scriptures were a foreshadowing of Christ.  Unlike so many (culture warrior?) minister today, who view Israel as a type or example of properly ordered societies or as an example of our own trials, Calvin viewed Israel as a type of Christ.  As Wallace summarized Calvin’s view: “The sufferings of the faithful in Israel are adumbrations of the sufferings of Christ.”  And it need hardly be said that this was Martin Luther’s view before Calvin.  Every Lutheran sermon has two basic parts: law and gospel.  In the first, God’s demand on his creature is articulated; and in the second, God’s provision in Christ for the failure to keep his demand is presented.  Thus, every rightly ordered Lutheran sermon has always presented Christ, as the gracious Redeember of the guilty.

Such Christological preaching feeds the soul and builds faith.  Faith is not built by preaching introspectively (constantly challenging people to question whether they have faith); faith is not built by preaching moralistically (which has exactly the opposite effect of focusing attention on the self rather than on Christ, in whom our faith is placed); faith is not built by joining the culture wars and taking potshots at what is wrong with our culture.  Faith is built by careful, thorough exposition of the person, character, and work of Christ.” (74-76)

Notice here that Sinclair Ferguson makes clear distinctions.

via Against Heresies here.

From the Heidelberg Catechism here.

32. Why are you called a Christian?
Because by faith I am a member of Christ,¹ and thus a partaker of His anointing;² so that I also may confess His name;³ present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him;⁴ and with a free conscience fight against sin and the devil in this life,⁵ and hereafter, in eternity, reign with Him over all creatures.^6
1 1 Cor 12:12-27; ² Joel 2:28 (Acts 2:17); 1 Jn 2:27; ³ Mt 10:32; Rom 10:9-10; Heb 13:15; ⁴ R 12:1; 1 Pt 2:5, 9; ⁵ Gal 5:16-17; Eph 6:11; 1 Tim 1:18-19; ⁶ Mt 25:34; 2 Tim 2:12

“

Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity–liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God.” 

 

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1923. Page 39.

 

If you lost the link, it’s here.

At the blog of Wes Brendenhof here.

Gotta listen.

Here.

Also, is Christ a crutch? The answers at the Heidelblog as well here.